Rasmussen Poll: Thompson Pulls Ahead, Hillary Stays Ahead

By: Lowell
Published On: 9/10/2007 11:57:18 AM

According to the latest Rasmussen poll, Fred Thompson has pulled into first place in the Republican scramble for the 2008 presidential nomination.  Thompson leads with 26%, followed by Rudy Giuliani at 22%, Mitt Romney at 13% and John McCain at 12%.  Perhaps this is Thompson's announcement bounce, or perhaps it's also the result of Giuliani saying that illegal immigration isn't a crime...who knows.  Also, let's remember that it's not so much the national polls that matter but the state polls.  There, Giuliani looks weak in Iowa; if he loses there, can he make it anywhere? :)

On the Democratic side, meanwhile, Hillary Clinton maintains the commanding lead she's held pretty much since the start of the race last winter.  Currently, Hillary's at 43%, compared to 22% for Barack Obama and 16% for John Edwards.  Again, I'm not sure how much the national polls mean, because whoever wins Iowa will get a big boost, and it may not be Hillary.  Still, she's looking strong right now; we'll see if Oprah Winfrey's help for Barack Obama, or John Edwards' labor support, can give them a boost in the next 3 1/2 months or so leading up to Iowa.

Comments



Must be the "fresh face" effect (The Grey Havens - 9/10/2007 12:14:03 PM)

Wow!  Won't Americans be inspired by this magnificent leader.

I really hope Grandpa Freddie is the nominee - who better to represent the Geriatric OLD Phonies?



I just don't get it... (uva08 - 9/10/2007 1:38:29 PM)
I cannot understand why Democrats are so blinded by their ideology that they can't see what a Clinton candidacy will mean.  Over forty percent of the population says that they will definitely AGAINST her compared to thirty-three for.  This gives us very little room for maneuvering and convincing.  Let's say it takes 48% to win the presidency in 2008 after an Independent takes a few votes from both sides.  This would mean that we would have to convince about 63% of the remaining population that they should vote for Clinton over the other candidate.  What if an Independent candidacy is not a big deal in '08 and you really do need 50% to win.  In that case we would have to convince close to 71% of remaining electorate to vote for her. 

All of this is without considering what it will mean for our congressional seats in the South where the "definitely against" Clinton numbers are probably even higher.  I don't mind Clinton and think she has a shot.  I just think we are making things unnecessarily hard for ourselves.



Ideology? (Lowell - 9/10/2007 1:39:51 PM)
What ideology would that be?  DLC centrism, in the case of Hillary Clinton?  Triangulation?  Maybe most non-blogosphere Democrats simply like Hillary Clinton, would that be the "Occam's Razore" explanation?


.. (uva08 - 9/10/2007 1:46:41 PM)
Perhaps it isn't ideology.  Whatever it is Democrats need to start examining whether it's worth it.


Just curious, have you ever met HIllary Clinton (Lowell - 9/10/2007 1:54:17 PM)
or been at event with her, up close and personal?  If you have, I'd be very curious to know what you thought of her.  If not, I'd strongly recommend that you go the next time you have a chance.


I have never met her. (uva08 - 9/10/2007 2:06:55 PM)
It's not like I hate her or anything I am just thinking what's going to be best for the country and the party.  Will the country benefit from yet another polarizing president?  I am sure Hillary is a nice and smart person but the hard fact is that she won't be able to personally meet even half the people she needs to win.  Perhaps she can do this through a commercial blitz reintroducing herself to the public.  I don't know.  Considering the stakes involved (Supreme Court control, Iraq War, War on Terror, our world standing, our economy, etc.) I don't want to take unnecessary risks.


I have met her (MohawkOV1D - 9/10/2007 2:26:04 PM)
and she is just as she appears to be:  parinoid,  and small minded.

EXAMPLE:  A White House Usher, by the name of Chris, served under Regan, Bush I, and Clinton.

When the Bush 41's left the White House the Ushers Office set up  a Laptop computer for Barbara Bush.  One day Barbara Bush called and asked for Chris because she was having a problem with her computer.  Chris helped Mrs. Bush and that was that right?  NOOOOOO

Hillary got wind that the former First Lady had been speaking with the Ushers Office.  Found out an Usher had assisted the former First Lady, and had him canned that day.

SHE RUINED A MAN'S LIFE!!!!  Ruined his career.  At the drop of a hat.

I know Chris very well, and I've met Hillary.

To hell with Hillary!



(loboforestal - 9/10/2007 2:48:26 PM)


Ee gads. (Lowell - 9/10/2007 3:15:42 PM)
Do you go through life this angry all the time?  Wow.


COMMENT HIDDEN (MohawkOV1D - 9/10/2007 7:15:05 PM)


By George, I think you've got it! (AnonymousIsAWoman - 9/10/2007 1:46:47 PM)
Seriously, Lowell.  I think you just hit the nail on the head.  Most of the public, watching the debates, have been impressed by her.  Even Dan and I, who are not necessarily in favor of all her ideas, have been impressed by her performance.  She does look presidential.  The question, though, is how will she do in polls up against Thompson?

For all that we rail against him, I think he's going to be a formidable opponent who could actually excite the Republican base and pull in enough moderates and independents if he plays his cards right.



My opinion of Hillary Clinton changed a lot (Lowell - 9/10/2007 1:52:56 PM)
when I had the privilege of attending an event with her in Arlington.  What I concluded from that event is four things:

1. She is smarter than hell.
2. She knows what she's talking about, and expresses it articulately.
3. She is very personable.
4. She has her act together in general.

The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton, if she's the Democratic nominee, will be a formidable candidate, very tough to beat.  Fred Thompson may very well be the Republicans' best hope against Hillary, but we'll see if Republicans would rather go with someone like a liberal who's hated by the firefighters (Giuliani) or a flip-flopper who just a few years ago was running to the left of Ted Kennedy (Mitt Romney).  Oh yeah, then there's John McCain...definitely don't count him out in New Hampshire!



NO. Just Ohio (JScott - 9/10/2007 8:13:12 PM)
Strickland in effect my friend!!


Fight off the after-lunch food coma (The Grey Havens - 9/10/2007 3:27:35 PM)
with this gem from Rachel Maddow:

Man!  I just can't get over the sex appeal of Grandpa Freddie...

OOOH!!! Hees sooo hot!!!



brazenly stolen from VB Dems (The Grey Havens - 9/10/2007 3:28:04 PM)
nice catch, eileen.


That won't last long (the Republican primary). I mean this (beachmom - 9/10/2007 3:30:42 PM)
Thompson guy is pathetic, doesn't know where he stands, thinks somebody else ought to figure out how to fight al Qaeda. 

This is a bad presidential cycle for the Republicans, that's for sure.



Yeah but... (snolan - 9/10/2007 5:38:45 PM)
I said that in 2000 and 2004...  can't the Rethugs come up with anyone decent?

Of the lot - only Huckabee seems a decent human being - and I hate his politics...  the rest appear to be a joke.

Except that the jokes keep winning - not this time!



Hillary............ (Flipper - 9/10/2007 6:36:11 PM)
Lowell, I agree with almost everything you listed regarding Hillary Clinton - I just don't see her warm and fuzzy side.  But i still think you totally underestimate the fact that a HUGE part of the electorate does not view her in those terms and basically despises her.  And that is why her candidacy scares me and I think it would be a huge mistake to nominate her. 


Personally, I wonder (Randy Klear - 9/10/2007 7:41:17 PM)
to what extent Clinton's increasing popularity among Democrats is just a matter of their accepting her nomination as inevitable and looking for reasons to like her.  No one wants to badmouth the nominee; no one wants to give the Republicans talking points. So we tell ourselves, "gee, she is really good at these debates," avoiding the fact that we are congratulating her for her ability to sidestep the questions and stick to her talking points, a la Bush.

I keep thinking that we are in the seventh year of an eight year object lesson in why family dynasties are a Bad Thing and yet here we are, buying into her claim that her case is different, taking at face value her assertions that her time as first lady, an unelected, unofficial advisor to the president, somehow counts as meaningful "experience". Anne Applebaum hit this on the head in a Slate commentary last month when she said:

In fact, there may be some sorts of experience that are actually detrimental to a potential president. I worry a lot, for example, about Hillary Clinton's much-vaunted travels as first lady: She came, she made carefully prepared speeches, and she received polite applause. It won't be like that if she's president, and I hope she doesn't think it will.

I also worry about the return of the 1993 suggestions that we'll be getting "two for the price of one" with a Clinton election.  This bothers me, not because having Bill Clinton as advisor would be a bad thing, but because, again, it implies that Hillary doesn't really grasp the limitations of her role in the 1990s.  The real lesson of the health care debacle was First Spouse is not an office, not a position of responsibility, and that when that person starts acting as if it is, people will resent it.  Hillary tried to claim authority while Bill had to take responsibility, and the Democratic Party ultimately paid the price for the split.

Maybe all this marks me as a needless worry-wart.  Maybe someone can explain to me why a family dynast whose strength is sticking to a tightly controlled message, who immediately points fingers when asked about things that went wrong (i.e. the Iraq war authorization) is OK as long as she's on our side.  I am yet to be persuaded.



Not to compare, but here are a few other (Lowell - 9/10/2007 8:01:21 PM)
family dynasties in history.

Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira and Rajiv Gandhi.

Thomas Cromwell, Oliver Cromwell...

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto

Haim Weizman, Ezer Weizman

Sukarno, Megawati

Georgios Papandreou, Sr., Andreas Papandreou, Georgios Papandreou, Jr.

Samuel Adams, John Adams and John Quincy Adams

Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt (cousin) and Eleanor Roosevelt.

Albert Gore, Sr. and Albert Gore, Jr.

William Henry Harrison, Benjamin Harrison

Lyndon Johnson and son-in-law Chuck Robb

John F. Fitzgerald, Joseph Kennedy Sr., John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Ted Kennedy...

Thomas Lee, Richard Henry Lee, Henry Lee III, Robert E. Lee, many other Lees...

There are literally hundreds more family dynasties, to the point that I would say this is the norm in human history, not the exception.  That doesn't necessarily mean it's good (or bad), it's just the way things have been and continue to be throughout the world.  Anyway, I certainly wouldn't say it's a disqualification in any way, shape or form for political office.  Look at the above list; overall, not too shabby!